Case 2404859/2025 · Employment Tribunal

A Raja v PCK Skin Limited — 2026

Case reference: 2404859/2025
Decision date: 14 July 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 13 September 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

A Raja

Respondent

PCK Skin Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

A Raja presented the claim in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 10 September 2025. PCK Skin (Manchester) Ltd failed to present a valid response on time. Legal Officer Ellis decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and approved the judgment on 14 July 2026.

The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions during the period 28 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 and ordered payment of £576.92 gross.

The breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay was also well-founded. The claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of one week's contractual notice. The tribunal awarded £576.92 in damages, using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on the sum as Post Employment Notice Pay.

The total award was £1,153.84 gross. The accompanying interest notice specified an annual rate of 8%, with a calculation day of 25 August 2026 following dispatch of the judgment on 24 August 2026. No interest would be payable if the award was paid in full within 14 days after dispatch. No quantified interest amount was recorded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Gross award for unauthorised deductions from wages during the period 28 April 2025 to 5 May 2025.	Upheld	—	£577
Breach of contract	Damages for one week's contractual notice, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay.	Upheld	—	£577

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,154; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.